Bushbot Nimrods No Speaka Da Languidge

[ECW]

Nearly 30 percent of State Department employees based overseas in "language-designated positions" are failing to speak and write the local language well enough to meet required levels, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office.

"We have a shortage of people with language skills in posts that need them," said John Brummet, assistant director for international affairs and trade at the GAO. "If people do not have the proper language skills, it is difficult to influence the people and government and to understand what they are thinking. It just doesn't get the job done."

After five years of running the government, why am I not surprised that 30% of Bushbot State Department appointees cannot speak the language of the country they are assigned to. In some critical places the shortage reaches 60%. The incompetence of this White House is reaching all time highs. Chimpy is even making Nixon look downright respectable.


Almost.

The Whole Story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081001430.html?nav=rss_politics)

[Nathan Brazil]

After five years of running the government, why am I not surprised that 30% of Bushbot State Department appointees cannot speak the language of the country they are assigned to.

And whoever assigned you to the United States clearly had staffing problems, too.

The article states that "employees" are language challenged, not "appointees".

[ECW]

Once appointed, they become employees. Welcome to America, Brazil.

[BoogyMan]

Once appointed, they become employees. Welcome to America, Brazil.



ECW, the average language post in the state department is a hired position, not appointed. You cannot spin this lie and cheap shot across the bow as truth. Try again ECW, thats two for two today.

[sbannon]

Once appointed, they become employees. Welcome to America, Brazil.

ECW, the average language post in the state department is a hired position, not appointed. You cannot spin this lie and cheap shot across the bow as truth. Try again ECW, thats two for two today.

So, uh... who's been doing that hiring?

[BoogyMan]

Once appointed, they become employees. Welcome to America, Brazil.

ECW, the average language post in the state department is a hired position, not appointed.Â*Â*You cannot spin this lie and cheap shot across the bow as truth.Â*Â*Try again ECW, thats two for two today.

So, uh... who's been doing that hiring?


You actually think that the president personally hires the translators?

[Nathan Brazil]

Once appointed, they become employees. Welcome to America, Brazil.


Welcome to America, where words mean things. Are you now trying to claim that more than 30% of the State Department employees are political appointees?

No, the overwhelming majority of people in the State Department, certainly more than 95%, are civil service workers, for whom it takes an act of God to fire for gross incompetence. That's why the civil service votes mainly Democrat, after all.

[ECW]

No, the overwhelming majority of people in the State Department, certainly more than 95%, are civil service workers, for whom it takes an act of God to fire for gross incompetence.Â*Â*That's why the civil service votes mainly Democrat, after all.

You'll need to provide a citation for those claims. Your word isn't good enough. Then, we can talk.

[ECW]

Once appointed, they become employees. Welcome to America, Brazil.

ECW, the average language post in the state department is a hired position, not appointed.Â*Â*You cannot spin this lie and cheap shot across the bow as truth.Â*Â*Try again ECW, thats two for two today.

So, uh... who's been doing that hiring?


You actually think that the president personally hires the translators?


No, otherwise they would be 90% incapable of speaking a foreign language and 100% incapable of using the English language effectively. Chimpy does appoint the people who actually do the hiring so the blame is pointed in the right direction.

[Nathan Brazil]

No, the overwhelming majority of people in the State Department, certainly more than 95%, are civil service workers, for whom it takes an act of God to fire for gross incompetence.Â*Â*That's why the civil service votes mainly Democrat, after all.

You'll need to provide a citation for those claims. Your word isn't good enough. Then, we can talk.


No. Some idiot claimed without reference that 30% of the State Department employees were presidential appointees. Clearly that person was so far beyond simple ignorance of the real world that discussion of the topic with that person would be pointless. When he grows up, then maybe he can find someone still interested.

Your argument's been shattered, end of thread.

[sbannon]

End of thread? My poor misguided friend who do you fantasize yourself to be? I've only just begun.

The president does appoint those who then hire subordinates, some of whom also hire their own subordinates. And just like any business or structured entity the man at the top is ultimately 100% responsible for the successes, failures and actions of everyone beneath him (or her).

Hence, my earlier question on the hiring.

[Rider]

ECW- Your hatred for the President is the obvious fuel for this whole pitiful thread. I wonder what the percentages were for the last two or three presidents. I imagine there's a trend here that has nothing to do with who is in charge. The article you quoted sounds to me to be just another hit piece on the President by a media who hates him as much as you do. They are masters of the half truth and inuendo.

[Rider]

BTW, has anyone else noticed that the further left posters are the more vile and disrespectful their references to the leadership of this country are?

[ECW]

BTW, has anyone else noticed that the further left posters are the more vile and disrespectful their references to the leadership of this country are?


Funny, I noticed the same thing about Republicans when Clinton was president. What goes around, comes around.

[ECW]

ECW- Your hatred for the President is the obvious fuel for this whole pitiful thread. I wonder what the percentages were for the last two or three presidents. I imagine there's a trend here that has nothing to do with who is in charge. The article you quoted sounds to me to be just another hit piece on the President by a media who hates him as much as you do. They are masters of the half truth and inuendo.


Sorry, Rider. That psychology class you took at night university doesn't qualify you to hang up a shingle and start psychoanalizing people.

As a few people on this board will testify, those "hatred" charges have been made against me before and they are untrue. Neo-cons like yourself are particularly sensitive to anyone who as much as says "boo" to your illustrious WAR president so I am not surprised you have dug into the Karl Rove playbook to try and smear my actual feelings for Dubya into something they are not. Nice try, though. You wouldn't be a true blue neo-con if you didn't try.

Pay attention, sonny, because I'm about to tell you how I feel about your president. I'm only going to tell you once so bookmark this so the next time you get the temptation to be an amateur shrink, you can click on this explanation to help you along.

I am angry and disappointed with your president because everything he ran on to get elected was ignored once he became president. His appeal to change the way Washington did business between Republicans and Democrats was a lie. His promise to help everyone in America begin from the same starting line (inaugural speech) has not been followed. His promise for a patient's bill of rights for America became a fart in a hurricane. I won't even go into how he failed to secure justice for the 3000 that died on 9/11, the thousands that have needlessly died for a war that should not have been entered into, the violations of our environmental laws to benefit wealthy campaign contributors, his failure to pursue a humble foreign policy where our allies would be extensively consulted like he promised, the torture that we sanctioned under our banner, the loss of our prestige all over the world because of reckless and self-righteous decisions that benefitted no one but ourselves, a city of a million people lost to a hurricane that he promised to rebuild but can't seem to get started on more than a year later, and a thousand other disappointments that make me wonder if we will ever get back to the way we once were before he took over. Yep. I'm angry. I'm disappointed. But neither of those emotions equate to hatred with me. Maybe for you, but not for me.

So take your bogus charges and blow 'em out your wazoo. Read below the avatar: it says Bush Basher, not Bush Hater. I leave the hate department to the neo-cons on this board who have proven time and time again that they cornered the market on that emotion. I'm not anywhere close.

[Rider]

ECW- First thing is- I'm not a neocon. Why do you assume that? Also, no one has to be a psychologist to read the vitriol and contempt you hold for Bush.

"Neo-cons like yourself are particularly sensitive to anyone who as much as says "boo" to your illustrious WAR president "

I don't care what you think or say about the President. It's your right and as a matter of fact there's plenty I don't like about his record so far.
It's the "war" part that I'm concerned about. You idiots on the left see this war as nothing more than another political game to play, with the goal being political power. You couldn't give a crap about winning or losing and your statements and actions prove it. The Democratic party should now be functioning in the role of "loyal opposition" like out of power parties have done throughout our history, but that's out the window now. Democrats, like spoiled children have decided to poison the well of political discourseÂ*Â*in this country. The political leadership of the Democratic party is obviously banking on failure in the war and is working feverishly to see that happen.

"I am angry and disappointed with your president because everything he ran on to get elected was ignored once he became president."

You must have been tickled with Clinton, then. Imagine! A president not living up to his campaign promises! I think that 9/11 reshuffled priorities somewhat, don't you think? The Democrats, determined to take Bush down stonewall every attempt to accomplish beneficial changes in any case. Just look at how Dems flipped on social security reform. Their position became "there's really nothing wrong with the system anyway", even though most were on record predicting its collapse only a few years ago.

"I won't even go into how he failed to secure justice for the 3000 that died on 9/11, the thousands that have needlessly died for a war that should not have been entered into,..."

Tell you what Junior, when the blowhards on your side of the aisle come up with a plan, let me know. All your side knows how to do is bitch. Your answer to 9/11 is to call 911 and report it. Also, when your side wins an election you'll have the opportunity to show us how to do it. Looks to me like the terroists took down two buildings and we took down two countries.

The rest of your screed is nothing but a rehash of bogus Democratic talking points and not worth the effort to respond. But let me tell you, pinhead- most of the posters on this forum that you call "neocons" are intelligent, rational folks firmly entrenched in the mainstream of this country's population. It's you and your ilk that are yapping like irritating little dogs around the margins. And even if you win in the coming elections you won't be able to hold on to power because of that.